On 5/5/10 22:42, Chris Custine wrote:
Comments inline...
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org>wrote:
...
I agree that this isn't the most important topic in the world, but so far
the conversation has been pretty calm so I don't think the discussion has
given cause for concern.
For me, it comes down to a matter of consistency. I don't want each
subproject making some arbitrary decision to use their own sub-groupId just
because they can. This just makes life difficult on a daily basic when
trying to specify dependencies in pom files. It would be nice to have some
understanding of when this make sense, e.g., why wouldn't I create a groupId
of org.apache.felix.fileinstall for File Install to give it "its own
identity"?
I totally agree with you on being consistent, and I guess I hadn't noticed
that we are diverging from the other Felix projects. I think when we moved
Karaf over from ServiceMix Kernel we just kept the naming convention we had
in place and I'm not sure we thought about it much at the time. I think
that alone makes it something we need to consider.
Keep in mind, I wasn't necessarily saying we should change it for Karaf,
but I was trying to say that I don't think we should perpetuate this to
other subprojects and/or expand its usage. So, for example, I'd be
inclined to want to change Gogo to not use this approach.
Personally, I think people are placing too much value on having their own
groupId, since the only place this really matters is if you are browsing a
Maven repo.
I'm sure there is something wrong with my dev workflow, but I spend a fair
amount of time each day browsing maven repositories. I call it Maven
spelunking ;-)
I guess you are just weird. ;-)
-> richard
I guess its just a personal thing, but like Guillaume, I just prefer a more
hierarchical organization as opposed to a flat group with dozens or hundreds
of artifacts. I can't come up with a good technical argument for either
approach, but for the sake of consistency I think we should take a look.
This is a pointless detail...if they change how they store artifacts in the
next release of Maven then all of this extra meaning people are conferring
upon it will be lost.
-> richard
Chris
--
Chris Custine
FUSESource :: http://fusesource.com
My Blog :: http://blog.organicelement.com
Apache ServiceMix :: http://servicemix.apache.org
Apache Felix :: http://felix.apache.org
Apache Directory Server :: http://directory.apache.org
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Sahoo<sa...@sun.com> wrote:
AFAIK, there is no domain called org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas. What if
someone else actually owns such a domain name and now wants to publish
some
artifacts under that groupId?
Thanks,
Sahoo
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
One could argue the domain name is org.apache, so it's clearly
controlled.
On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Sahoo<sa...@sun.com> wrote:
Is there a domain name for each of those groupIds? Unless one controls
the domain name, it should not be used as the groupId as per [1]. So, I
would expect all the groupIds to be org.apache.felix for all Felix
subprojects.
Thanks,
Sahoo
[1]
http://maven.apache.org/guides/mini/guide-central-repository-upload.html
Guillaume Nodet wrote:
btw, even in karaf, we have sub-sub groupids, for example:
org.apache.felix.karaf.jaas
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:38, Guillaume Nodet<gno...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Yes, you don't end up with 100s of jars in org.apache.felix,
so it's better categorized.
On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 17:20, Richard S. Hall<he...@ungoverned.org
wrote:
I noticed while poking around Gogo that its Maven groupId is:
org.apache.felix.gogo
While most other subprojects are:
org.apache.felix
Apparently, Karaf also creates its own groupId. I guess I was under the
assumption that all subprojects were using the same groupId. It doesn't
seem
necessary, even if you have multiple modules, since for example iPOJO
has
multiple modules, but still uses org.apache.felix.
I realize the groupId doesn't really have much impact, but it does make
it
somewhat confusing to know which is the correct groupId to use for a
given
subproject. So, from that perspective it seems easier and more
consistent
if
every subproject just used the same groupId. Are there any benefits of
having separate groupIds?
-> richard
--
Cheers,
Guillaume Nodet
------------------------
Blog: http://gnodet.blogspot.com/
------------------------
Open Source SOA
http://fusesource.com
